Year of inscription on the World Heritage List 1999
Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger N/A
Previous Committee Decisions see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved: USD 41,400
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/assistance/
UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds
Previous monitoring missions
January 2004: IUCN mission; March-April 2008: Joint UNESCO/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission; January-February 2011: Joint UNESCO/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission; March 2014: IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission
Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports
Illustrative material see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2015
On 23 January 2015, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents. On 20 April 2015, the State Party submitted a copy of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken for the Habema-Nduga-Kenyam road. The State Party reports the following progress on the implementation of Committee Decision 38 COM 7B.67 (Doha, 2014) and the recommendations of the March 2014 IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission:
Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre and IUCN
It is recommended that the Committee welcome the State Party’s decision to suspend further construction of the Habema-Nduga-Kenyam road until the completion of the EIA and until effective monitoring and strict control of the impacts of the road can be implemented. The EIA that was submitted in April 2015 is currently being reviewed by IUCN. Preliminary review suggests that, although the State Party states that the EIA integrates the property’s OUV, an assessment of impacts on the OUV is not clearly made in a dedicated chapter. It appears that attributes bearing the OUV are considered as part of a more general assessment of impacts on geological, ecological and biological values. A definition of the property’s OUV also appears to be lacking. It is recommended that the Committee urge the State Party to ensure that the EIA is revised to include a specific assessment of impacts on the attributes bearing the OUV, which should be clearly identified.
The ongoing revision of the management and zonation plan of the property to incorporate its OUV is noted with appreciation. While the current zonation of the property takes into account traditional use zones and areas that are traditionally considered by indigenous communities to be inviolable, the 2014 mission noted that the zonation is very patchy and difficult to monitor. It is recommended that the Committee urge the State Party to ensure that the revision of the zonation plan results in a simplified zonation that is based on a clear definition of the OUV and its associated conditions of integrity. The State Party is encouraged to refer to the methodology developed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in Australia to support World Heritage site managers in breaking down OUV according to its clearly defined and manageable attributes. It is recommended that the Committee encourage the State Party to consider this methodology both for the revision of the management and zonation plans and for the review of the EIA.
Some progress is also being made with the implementation of a number of other recommendations from the March 2014 mission, including further research on the causes of Nothofagus dieback, and various measures that are being taken to improve the management capacity of the LNPA, including a 38% increase in budget allocation and the proposed elevation of the LNPA’s government level, which the mission considered a crucial step to increase the LNPA’s capacity to coordinate and negotiate with other government agencies. However, the implementation of most mission recommendations is still in an early stage, therefore it is recommended that the Committee urge the State Party to continue its efforts to implement all recommendations of the March 2014 mission. In particular, it should be recalled that both the 2011 and 2014 missions identified poaching as a significant threat that may be affecting the property, partly due to the difficulty to detect and monitor poaching in such a large and difficult to access property. Both missions noted that significant trade in protected and endangered species from Papua exists, although it is currently impossible to define whether the species marketed originate from the property. It is therefore crucial that additional resources are invested in anti-poaching activities, and that cooperation with provincial level authorities is increased. Therefore, it is recommended that the Committee reiterate its request to the State Party to conduct an assessment of the level of poaching in the property, and to also request the State Party to develop an adequately resourced anti-poaching strategy on the basis of that assessment. Meanwhile, the Committee may wish to commend the State Party for its commitment to allocate significant budget for Lorentz National Park in 2015, an increase of 38 percent compared to that of 2014.
Decision Adopted: 39 COM 7B.12
The World Heritage Committee,